Paralith

The damage done by a virus to its host may be an "unintentional side effect," but I don't think that makes the virus "stupid." When it comes to viruses and other such pathogens, the ease with which they can be spread and the speed with which they kill their hosts go hand in hand. A virus which has evolved to spread very quickly can afford to be very virulent, as it will likely have already spread to a new host even before it kills its current host. However, a virus that has not evolved to spread as easily can't afford to kill its host so quickly; it needs the host to stay alive at least long enough to spread to a new, healthy host. And considering the speed at which HIV is spreading across human populations, I think it can afford to be fairly deadly. But isn't that what all life is anyway? DNA in a fleshy (if you're an animal, anyway) box that's trying to make more of itself. You have to be careful when you start saying organisms have things like intentions and purposes. The only intention and purpose life can be argued to have is to replicate itself. Thus it doesn't matter if viruses replicate "sloppily," because sloppy or not, as long as it works, that's all that matters. And clearly, viruses work. And they can be damn hard to stop. They can also be an important form of population control, enabling a given ecosystem to maintain a diversity of species instead of being taken over by just one, for example.

I agree, pioneer - you keep stepping around the issue of defining your use of the word "potential" for us. You can't use the word itself in the definition of that word. Now, I understand that a hydrogen atom in a water molecule has a relatively weak positive charge since the oxygen atom, being more electronegative, has a greater pull on the electrons it shares with hydrogen, so that those electrons spend more time closer to the oxygen than to the hydrogen. I think we all understand that. So you're saying that in this situation, hydrogen has a greater potential to do what?? Electrons in a higher orbital shell have more potential to fall to a lower orbital shell, water at the top of a hill has a more potential to flow to the bottom of the hill. So what are you saying that hydrogen is more likely to do than oxygen? You need to be more explicit if we're going to understand you. Are you saying that a hydrogen ion, aka a free proton, is more reactive than an oxygen ion? Then yes, that is true, because the oxygen has a full electron octet, but the proton is still electron hungry. If that's what you're saying, then I can sort of loosely follow your OP up to this point: um, citation please? how do you know with such certainty that one hydrogen bond can be stronger than others? As far as I know there is no such phenomenon that occurs to any significant degree. But if you can prove me wrong with an independent confirming source, then please do.

First of all, it's not that no one is allowed to open the "black box." It's only a black box because at this point we don't have enough information to see inside of it. But the whole point of the research is to try and find out what's in there, not just dance around it. Secondly, statistical analysis is not inherently irrational. It can be used irrationally, like most things can, but when used with a correct comprehension of what the statistics do and do not say, they can be used to make rational steps forward into understanding the inner workings of the black box. And really, pioneer, you need to stop making the majority of your posts consist of in depth, convoluted analogies and metaphors. Analogies can help sometimes, but you use them to the point of confusion, and it isn't helping you make your point.

I definitely agree. Especially since the more crazy and different (and therefore likely to be false) the results of a study, the more likely the popular press will go to town with it - and probably make even more ridiculous extrapolations along the way. I once read a news snippet describing how a protein involved with the formation of long term memory had been recently identified, and the author of the clip somehow concluded that this was a significant step towards helping smokers quit cigarettes by removing their memory associations of bars with smoking.

Well, I think the whole dog conditioning vs. genetics thing started because pioneer suggested Vick might not be so much in the wrong for allowing fighting dogs to do what they were bred for. And yes, dogs bred for aggression will be more aggressive. But dogs, unlike wolves, are also bred to listen to humans. So an aggressive dog will fight when it's being told to fight, but it can also be controlled by a human to the point where they can be considered pretty safe dogs - which is a better lifestyle for them anyway. Just because a dog likes to fight doesn't mean it likes to get hurt. So yes, what Vick did is not acceptable in society today. (Besides, even aside from the fighting, he killed under-performing dogs in various cruel ways for fun. I think that alone is enough to lock him up.) So, like Vick, are cattle workers/ranchers giving their cattle an unacceptable lifestyle? Well, as long as the cows are happy as they can be prior to slaughter, I'd say no. And like everyone's been saying, it's even in the industry's interest to make sure this is so.

Wolves can be domesticated to a degree, but there will still be some key differences between them and dogs that will make them inherently more dangerous. There was a study done using wolves that had been hand raised by humans since birth, that compared behaviors between them and dogs. (I saw it on tv, and when I have time I'll try and find a real reference for it.) What their results showed is that dogs look to humans for guidance in a way that even domesticated wolves simply will not. The first test involved making two cups smell like food, but only putting food in one of the cups. A human will stand between the cups while a dog is held a few feet away. The human points to the cup that actually has the food. The dog goes right to that cup every time. The wolves don't even want to pay attention when the human is doing the pointing. The second test had food in a cage that was attached to a stick, so by pulling the stick the food could be pulled out. Obviously both the dog and the wolf figured it out. Then the cages were rigged so that it looked like the same trick would work, but the food was fixed in place and couldn't be pulled out. The wolf tried and tried to find a way to get the food. The dog, after trying a few times and being unsuccessful, would stop and look up at the human - presumably to "ask for help." This leads me to believe that a wolf can't be controlled by their owner the way a dog can. Dogs have been bred to pay attention to human cues and to listen to a properly dominant owner. But wolves are not. Thus Dr.DNA's personal example of his friend's wolf-dog running off to chew on the neighbors' goats whenever he felt like it. I suspect this is largely why un-domesticated animals don't make good pets - they simply don't have any respect, as it were, for humans in a dominant role in their lives. Conditioning can definitely have a huge impact on an animal's behavior, but I think that in the case of dogs vs wolves, the existence of a basic genetic predisposition can presuppose a lot of that conditioning.

I don't really see how different your theory is from mine. If you recall, I myself said that intercourse isn't necessarily a part of the practicing - the key component is practicing mating behaviors. And, making yourself look beautiful, we both agree, is a mating related behavior. I agree that through evolved influences, these desires are present in the different sexes regardless of the environment in which they are raised - for example, as you said, even without the presence of the opposite sex. However, though culturally not as acceptable or common in western industrialized countries, girls sexually experimenting at a very young age is probably more common than you or I would find comforting - but it most certainly should not be discounted.

wow. You just summarized what pioneer's been doing ever since he came to this forum. did any of the engineers you worked with ever come to appreciate the complexity of biological systems, or is there no hope?

sorry about that, alien. We're done now though, I think. =) Say, did anybody every guess correctly what you drank the first time? Also, doesn't it stand to reason that you didn't taste vodka after this little foray if you didn't drink any?

As long as you understand that the "junk" wasn't created for that purpose or anything like that, then yes. The initial reason for junk appropriation varies - but one possible advantage for retaining junk, rather than "removing" it via selection, is that it serves as a damage trap, or a back up, etc.

exactly. If the OP had a good night's rest, a significant - but not necessarily total - amount of alcohol will be gone. As we later found out, he in fact did not have a good night's sleep, and the amount of alcohol digested may not have been as close to significant. Too many other variables involved. of course they're included in averages. that's how you calculate an average - by including all the numbers in the data set. if we didn't include the extremes, there wouldn't be so much skew. but then again, who decides where the cut off for "extremes" is? instead of getting into that can of worms, averages themselves just have to be taken with a grain salt, though most certainly not ignored.

For goodness sake. Of course a printed article isn't everything, and I said as much. But it helps, because an article from a peer reviewed journal (NOT just a popular magazine) is a source that most people can recognize as relatively reliable. Plus, if we have access to the article, we can go and read it and make a critical assessment of what was done ourselves. And if you have indeed used "numerous results of such tests to support" your conclusion, why can't you share those tests and the writings of those who conducted them with us? Secondly, in my little speculation I never said logic IS an emotion. I said we could have an emotion that is the desire to USE logic. Though we may use logic, and other animals may not have it, it's usage may still be determined by emotions, and so we may not be so free of them as you think we are.

I do indeed appreciate the power of the average; I use it myself all the time, as I work in biomedical research. So I can also assure you that I don't doubt the work of - well - biomedical researchers. However, after I make my averages, I also take into consideration the range and nature of my data, as that will effect how how representative of reality that average is likely to be. And I'm afraid you're not going to convince me that somehow extremes don't skew averages. It is a matter of mathematics and isn't up for debate. But you are right that extremes that balance each other out - both very large and very small relative the majority of the data - will also bring the average closer to value range where the bulk of the data points lie. But that is a very ideal kind of data set, and you won't always find it in the real world, even with very large sample sizes. I'm not trying to pass off conventional medicine. I'm saying that there is a good reason to not apply only one average - that of the amount of alcohol burned in a given period of time - to a complex situation, and to assume that it will accurately and completely explain the phenomenon occurring. Metabolism especially varies greatly from individual to individual, as it depends a lot on genetics, body condition, and what other elements are currently within a person's system. the OP himself may be an outlier, someone whose metabolism, or with whom the particulars of the specific occasion, pushed him far outside of the norm and average. Which would also explain why you may have many friends who like to binge, but haven't had the same experience as him, because they are closer to the average. But he may not be.

did you ever consider that the desire to think and behave logically could in itself be an emotion? as emotions are motivators towards adaptive behaviors, surely an emotion that drove humans to think more logically and more mechanically is what helped push us to the top, as it were. thus our behaviors become a balance between the emotions of fear, desire, etc, and the emotion of logic, and by your rules we are no more conscious than a chicken. It may be a different kind of emotion than other animals have, but it's still just an emotion. And as INow says, I doubt you'll be able to find studies anywhere that conflict with that opinion. However, having studies that support your opinion are a good way to validate it. Not that a citation is the only way to prove anything, but that it shows somebody somewhere went out, got their hands on some animals, and did some conclusive tests that we can rely on as a representation of reality, as well as it can be known at this time. And by being an article in a scientific journal, we can also know we aren't just reading the words of some quack pretending to have done experiments. At this point, I'm perfectly content with us disagreeing with each other. The sticking points of many of our opinions are just not known right now. Yes, even with what you say about behaviors and emotions - emotions themselves are still not completely understood, especially not in the manner in which they influence and/or control our behavior and that of other animals.

Once again, you're assuming that there will in fact be people on both sides of the extreme. And this is an assumption you cannot make for every case. That was merely my point. Also again, I never said they should never be used. I just said in some cases they're not as useful as they are in others. Don't get all riled up over something I didn't say.

That's assuming that there ARE in fact enough people on both extremes to balance out the average. Do you know that for a fact? And does this average take into account the speed with which the alcohol was imbibed? Or is the metabolism rate the same for all speeds? Over what length of time is this average metabolism amount? Is this for full or empty stomachs? Was the majority of metabolism done while asleep or while still awake? And will all these averages also have harmonious extremes that keep the skew away? The point is, this is a complex issue. Averages are less accurate for more complex situations when it comes to individuals. It's not that averages are always wrong and should never be used. It's that in some circumstances they're less useful than others.

Hmm. I don't think the words "never use" were in alien's post. When you have an average, you can use it to guess what might be happening to an individual, but especially if you're dealing with a somewhat complex issue with many contributing factors, you can only expect a limited likelihood that your guess is accurate. Averages don't help you much in cases like these, especially since they are very easily skewed by extreme outliers - for a hypothetical example, a minority of people break down alcohol VERY quickly (I have no idea if this is true, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is). This will drive the average down beyond the amount of time the majority of people need to eradicate alcohol from their systems. However, using the average from a larger group to predict the average of a smaller group probably has a higher chance of success, since the small group is more likely to represent the variability of the larger group the average came from in the first place.

yes, but not having food and seeing a random dead animal does not have the same significance as losing an individual with which you've formed a strong social bond. So the dog is not only just considering that the individual is no longer there, but that it will miss the bond it had in the past with this individual. A social bond fills different kinds of needs than food does. This is the problem with this whole debate. You are rather arbitrarily choosing what actions absolutely positively require consciousness, and using them to make your determinations. If you're not even sure how to define consciousness, how you can you know what types of behaviors require it? And if you do in fact know what behaviors require a conscious mind, then maybe you could provide us with some sources that have researched it. Besides, going back to what I said earlier, what if some animals have consciousness, but the only behaviors that we so far know are ones that could be done with OR without consciousness? My opinions above can only be, at the current state of knowledge, opinions. But the same goes for yours as well.

It's not simply "detecting" the absence of another individual that is related to awareness. That is the same as "detecting" the absence of food. It is the expression of potentially maladaptive behaviors, aka debilitating grief, that I think betrays a degree of awareness. Though grief may seem maladaptive alone, the adaptive benefits of consciousness outweigh the cost of exhibiting grief. And I think some comprehension of the repercussions of death as opposed to what it means to not have food do require different minimum levels of awareness. If you can't find food right now, well, that does make you sad, but you have to go out and get some more. If your friend is gone, and will never return, that's a different can of worms. This requires some awareness of a future that will be different than it used to be. Considering the fact that I disagree that awareness is not an on-or-off function, I doubt we're ever going to agree on what is self aware and what is not. I most certainly don't think dogs are self-aware the way a human is, but they are definitely more so than an insect. Neither of us will know who's conjectures are correct until science has gone far enough to determine consciousness conclusively.

Well, I have a hypothesis for why dogs evolved the ability to grieve. I think the capacity for grief is probably something of a side effect of being a social, conscious animal. The forming of bonds with other individuals is important for social animals to get ahead in life (and dogs are most certainly social, having been so even before domestication), and being conscious allows for the recognition of the loss of that bond, and to grieve over it. And as I said before, with dogs I'll leave the exact degree of consciousness as up for debate, but I feel that the fact that they grieve is evidence that suggests they are aware to a certain degree. I understand your cause for concern about their breeding being controlled by humans, but that's where the example of the elephants can be instrumental. They are also social, and they also grieve. All having evolved in an environment where humans weren't around to help even the weak and defective ones survive. If it is possible for this to be a genuinely evolved characteristic in elephants, surely it's possible to be so for dogs as well. Another interesting point this brings up is the fact that, were not the circumstances of dogs' evolution such that they exhibit grief, there may not have been another good way to detect their consciousness (assuming, for the moment at least, that they are in fact conscious to a degree). It follows that for other animals, they too may in fact be conscious, but the behavior that is visible to us is simply not necessarily indicative of that fact. Long story short, I think that until science has reached a better consensus on the definition of consciousness and how to truly detect it, we really can't say one way or another based only on what we know now.

Any lab that will teach you new things is a good lab in my book. Obviously you need to consider if that's the kind of environment you think you can work well in, but I would go for it. My experiences with the job market, if nothing else, have shown me how valuable having a range of skills is, and how rare it is to find a job where they're willing to teach you a lot of new things, and not just use you for the stuff you already know how to do.

vodka and redbull? I had a tiny 5'3" friend who I swear could drink gallons of the stuff. That girl could drink football players under the table. Though I never recall her mentioning a similar problem before. I like Dr. DNA's explanation because it takes into account molecules that might be particular to vodka and not other liquor, and variability from person to person - alien might have something about his metabolism that isn't quite as efficient at dealing with this supposed molecule as other peoples' are.

I was going to add elephants, but I wasn't sure if they were too close to self-awareness on someguy's scale to represent the capabilities of most animals.

I have a question for you, someguy. What do you think about animals that grieve? Dogs are a well known case since they exist in such close contact with humans. When there are two dogs in a household and one of them dies, the other will grieve. For no reason other than the loss of this individual, their behavior changes - they move less, they sleep more, they eat less, sometimes there are even physical changes like the graying of their fur. They look for the other dog. This may be attributable to reflection of the emotions of the humans in the house, but then the dog usually perks back up sooner than the humans do. How would you explain this in terms of simple reaction to the environment? This surely wouldn't have been a favored behavior in the wild - wolves that stop eating just because one of their member is gone aren't doing themselves any favors. Now, I leave the exact depth of understanding up to interpretation, as well as how long the memory of the loss really lasts. But I do think that for some period of time at least, the dog does have some awareness that their friend is gone. Otherwise I think they'd just happily gobble up more food and more attention left for them now that the other guy is out of the way.

Mm-hmm. Oh yes, it's all about the roll of the dice. It's quite random that animals living in cold climates have fur that insulates them from the cold and that the ones without fur died from exposure. If you actually understood evolutionary theory, you'd understand that selective advantage is a far cry from gambling. Selective advantage allows that which works best in a given environment to carry on, while that which does not work does not. The variety is generated randomly, but the selection of what stays and what goes from within that variety is not. Besides, how do you suppose we test this logical progression of yours, my friend? Because after all, the only thing we can test it on is this "broken data" that consists of all the real-world observations ever made about biological systems. Incomplete knowledge of the incredibly complex world around us is a fact of life, and whatever theories you "logically" come up with won't do anyone any good unless we know they reflect reality, which can't be known unless it is tested against the empirical data that you so despise. And that there's no getting away from.